The Common Technical Document ICH and CTD November

The Common Technical Document ICH and CTD November 19, 2002 Kimberly Stranick, Ph. D. Worldwide Regulatory Affairs

Topics Ú What is ICH? Ú Who is ICH? Ú ICH Guidelines Ú What is CTD? Ú Applicability and Implementation of CTD Ú CTD Structure Ú What’s New with CTD? Ú FDA Experience with CTD Ú What is e-CTD? Ú WRA’s CTD Initiatives

What is ICH? Ú Agreement between EU, Japan, and US Ú Joint Initiative between HA Regulators and Industry Ú System of Steering Committee and Expert Working Groups Ú Defined Process for Implementation of agreements in ICH regions

ICH Mission (International Conference on Harmonization) Ú “A more economical use of human, animal and material resources, and the elimination of unnecessary delay in the global development and availability of new medicines whilst maintaining safeguards on quality, safety and efficacy, and regulatory obligations to protect public health. ”

ICH Parties Ú European Commission - European Union Ú European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Ú Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) Japan Ú Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA) Ú US FDA Ú Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (Ph. RMA)

ICH Observers Ú WHO Ú European Free Trade Area (EFTA) – represented at ICH by Switzerland Ú Canada – represented at ICH by Health Canada Ú ICH Secretariat managed by International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA) to ensure contact with industry outside ICH region

ICH Topics Ú Q = QUALITY Topics – those relating to chemical and pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Ú S = SAFETY Topics – those relating to in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies Ú E = EFFICACY Topics – those relating to clinical studies in human subjects Ú M = Multidisciplinary Topics

Multidisciplinary ICH Topics Ú M 1 = Medical Terminology Ú M 2 = Electronic Standards for Transmission of Regulatory Information Ú M 3 = Timing of Preclinical Studies in Relation to Clinical Trials Ú M 4 = The Common Technical Document

ICH Guidelines Ú E 1: The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety Ú E 3: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports Ú E 5: Ethnic Factors in the Acceptability of Foreign Clinical Data Ú E 6: Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Ú Q 7: GMP for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

ICH Process Ú Step 1 - Consensus Building – Sign off by Expert Working Group members Ú Step 2 - Start of Regulatory Action (and testing) Ú Step 3 - Regulatory Consultation (Draft guidance) Ú Step 4 - Adoption of a Tripartite Harmonized Text Ú Step 5 - Implementation

What is the Common Technical Document? ÚCTD is – an agreed format for common organization of documents in regulatory applications. ÚCTD is not – a common content for all markets. ÚAs always, content is data and label driven for a given market.

What does CTD specify? Ú The intention of the CTD format is to save time and resources and to facilitated regulatory review and communication Ú CTD guidance gives no information about the content of a dossier and does not indicate which studies and data are required for a successful application. Ú Content guidelines distinct from CTD

Why a common format? Ú CTD concept provides a common format to: – allow each HA to find supporting information they need for their assessment (consistency of scientific content) – show approach to scientific development plan and assess quality of design, study performance, and compliance

Applicability of CTD Ú The CTD was designed to apply to all categories of medicinal products, including – – – drugs biologics generics herbals radiopharmaceuticals vaccines Ú Applies to all types of applications (stand alone and abridged)

CTD through the ICH Process Ú Step 1: Consensus Building – presented to ICH Steering Committee March 1996 Ú Step 4: Adoption – Endorsed by the ICH Steering Committee October 2000 Ú Step 5: Implementation – Ongoing in ICH regions

Implementation of CTD (ICH Step 5) Ú July, 2001 Ú July, 2003 Optional EU Japan US Mandatory EU Japan Highly Recom. US

US Requirement for CTD Ú CTD is highly recommended in US after July ‘ 03, not required Ú Likely CTD will never be “mandatory” in US Ú Would require change in US law Ú FDA “expects” rather than “requires”

CTD Implementation Issues Ú At national level for each ICH party, a local version of ICH approved guidance is published. Ú Wording in the core CTD may be slightly different among regions due to specific editing for local regulations. Ú Does not affect common understanding by the parties of the ICH CTD. Ú However, some region-specific expectations and requirements exist.

Region-specific requirements Ú Module 1 (all) – regional administrative information (forms), labeling, Environmental Risk Assessment, signature of experts. . . Ú Module 3 (3. 2 R and 2. 3 R summary) – US: Method validation package, comparability protocols – US and Canada: Executed batch records – EU: Process validation scheme for drug product, medical device Ú Module 5 (no location specified) – ISE, ISS and case report forms if required by FDA – tabulated list of trial subjects if required by MHLW

Implementation in EU for MRPs Ú CPMP has clarified CTD implementation requirements for ongoing MRPs. – For submissions made to RMS in old format before July ‘ 03, where MRP starts after July ‘ 03, the CMSs will accept old EU format until Dec 31, 2004. • SPRI example: Ezetimibe – After July ‘ 03, CTD is mandatory for all initial submissions under MRP.

SPRI’s CTD Implementation recommendations for ongoing procedures Ú Line extensions – EU: DS reformatted to CTD with identical content – US: cross reference to approved DS application IF electronic – DP in CTD format Ú EU Variation – All new data in CTD format Ú US Supplement – Follow format of original NDA

CTD Implementation by SPRI Source Areas Ú Dev. Ops – Document Quality Initiative for report templates and sample reports according to CTD Ú DSM – Tabular formats and summary document templates revised for CTD Ú Clinical – No content change required to CSRs – Different summary documents required

Making a CTD Submission Ú Submission format as defined by M 4 is paper Ú Electronic applications before July ‘ 03 must be hybrid based on “old” electronic guidelines with CTD pieces mapped in Ú Electronic CTD guidance is separate and lags behind CTD for definition and implementation

CTD Structure Full dossier contains 5 “Modules” – Only Modules 2 - 5 are “CTD” Ú Module 1 - region-specific but always included in complete CTD structure Ú Module 2 - All summaries/overviews Ú Module 3 - CMC (“Quality”) Ú Module 4 - Preclinical Ú Module 5 - Clinical

1. 1 Overall To. C inc. Mod 1 -5 Not part of the CTD Module 1 Regional Administrative Information 2. 1 To. C of the CTD (Mod 2, 3, 4, 5) Module 2 2. 2 CTD Introduction 2. 3 Quality Overall Summary 3. 0 Module 3 Quality 3. 1 To. C for Mod 3 2. 4 Non-clinical Clinical 2. 5 Overview 2. 6 Clinical Summary 2. 7 Overview Non-clinical Summary 4. 0 Module 4 Non-clinical Study Reports 4. 1 To. C for Mod 4 5. 0 Module 5 Clinical Study 5. 1 To. C for Mod 5 Reports CTD

Module 2 - CTD Summaries Ú 2. 1 Overall CTD To. C Ú 2. 2 CTD Introduction Ú 2. 3 Quality Overall Summary Ú 2. 4 Non-Clinical Overview Ú 2. 5 Clinical Overview Ú 2. 6 Non-Clinical Written and Tabulated Summaries Ú 2. 7 Clinical Summary

2. 2 CTD Introduction Ú General introduction to the pharmaceutical, including – pharmacologic class – mode of action – proposed clinical use Ú Typically 1 page

2. 3 Quality Overall Summary Content Ú A summary that follows the scope and outline of the Body of Data in Module 3 Ú Emphasize and discuss critical key parameters of the product Ú Discuss key issues to integrate information from Module 3 and other modules Ú Typically 40 pages excluding tables, figures

2. 3 Quality Overall Summary Format Ú 2. 3. S Ú 2. 3. P Ú 2. 3. A Ú 2. 3. R Introduction Drug Substance Drug Product Appendices Regional Information

2. 4 Nonclinical Overview - Content Ú An integrated and critical assessment of the pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicologic evaluation Ú Discuss relevant guidance, and any deviations from guidance should be discussed and justified Ú Nonclinical testing strategy should be justified, including GLP status of submitted studies Ú Discuss associations with quality characteristics, clinical trial results, effects with related products Ú Typically 30 pages

2. 4 Nonclinical Overview - Format Ú 2. 4. 1 Overview of Nonclinical Testing Strategy Ú 2. 4. 2 Pharmacology Ú 2. 4. 3 Pharmacokinetics Ú 2. 4. 4 Toxicology Ú 2. 4. 5 Integrated Overview and Conclusions Ú 2. 4. 6 List of Literature Citations

2. 5 Clinical Overview - Content Ú Highest level summary and analysis of clinical data and overall clinical development plan Ú Overview of the clinical part of the dossier with succinct discussion and interpretation Ú Critical analysis of clinical data for efficacy and safety, as well as other relevant information (e. g. pertinent animal data or quality issues) Ú Typically 30 pages

2. 5 Clinical Overview - Format Ú 2. 5. 1 Product development rationale Ú 2. 5. 2 Overview of Biopharmaceutics Ú 2. 5. 3 Overview of Clinical Pharmacology Ú 2. 5. 4 Overview of Efficacy Ú 2. 5. 5 Overview of Safety Ú 2. 5. 6 Benefits and Risks Conclusions Ú 2. 5. 7 References

2. 6 Nonclinical Written and Tabulated Summaries - Content Ú Integrate information across studies and across species Ú Primarily text, with examples of tables and figures Ú Exposure in test animals should be related to exposure in humans given maximum intended doses Ú Age, gender, and metabolite-related effects Ú In vitro studies first, then in vivo Ú Ordered by species, route, duration Ú Typically 100 -150 pages

2. 6 Written and Tabulated Summaries - Format Ú 2. 6. 1 Introduction Ú 2. 6. 2 Written Summary of Pharmacology Ú 2. 6. 3 Tabulated Summary of Pharmacology Ú 2. 6. 4 Written Summary of Pharmacokinetics Ú 2. 6. 5 Tabulated Summary of Pharmacokinetics Ú 2. 6. 6 Written Summary of Toxicology Ú 2. 6. 7 Tabulated Summary of Toxicology

2. 7 Clinical Summary - Content Ú Provides factual summary and support for conclusions and critical issues identified in the Clinical Overview Ú Comparison of results across studies with integration of clinical information Ú Analysis of all relevant information for dosing recommendations Ú Typically 50 -400 pages (excluding tables)

2. 7 Clinical Summary - Format Ú 2. 7. 1 Summary of biopharmaceutic studies and associated analytical methods Ú 2. 7. 2 Summary of clinical pharmacology (including clin micro characterization studies) Ú 2. 7. 3 Summary of clinical efficacy Ú 2. 7. 4 Summary of clinical safety Ú 2. 7. 5 References Ú 2. 7. 6 Synopses of individual studies

Clinical Overview vs Clinical Summary Ú Clinical Overview (2. 5): – critical analyses of efficacy, safety, and benefit/risk – links the dossier with the label – links all aspects of the development program Ú Clinical Summary (2. 7): – comprehensive factual summary of all relevant data, including cross study analyses and post-marketing experience – includes references and synopses of clinical studies

What’s New with CTD? Ú Granularity and pagination of documents within modules and study reports Ú Definition of discrete header information for documents within modules Ú Cross referencing between modules Ú Confusion about ISS requirement for US

Cross references between modules Ú Quality and Nonclinical/Clinical: – Quality module should include appropriate reference to modules 4 and 5 for drug substance and drug product batch information and formulation development issues – Process change information should cross reference reports in modules 4 or 5 that demonstrate comparability after the process changes

Cross references between modules Ú Nonclinical and Quality: – Nonclinical overview should address: • relevance of analytical methods used • quality characteristics of human drug as relates to nonclinical findings • impurities and degradants present in drug substance and product and what is known of their potential pharmacologic and toxicologic effects

Cross references between modules Ú Nonclinical and Clinical – Nonclinical overview should include: • Assessment of limitations and utility of nonclinical studies for prediction of potential AEs in humans • associations between nonclinical data and results of clinical trials • relevance of pharmacokinetic and nonclinical models, including derived parameters • effects seen with related products, metabolites, excipients

US Need for ISS? Ú FDA to reissue guideline to clarify what should be included as ISS for CTD submissions Ú ISS should be integrated analysis, not summary Ú Lengthy integrated analyses unlikely to be fully captured in shorter Module 2 documents Ú Integrated safety analysis in Module 5 for US Ú FDA recommends early discussion with review division for agreement or questions

FDA Experience with CTD Ú FDA reviewer training ongoing Ú 10 CTD submissions to CDER (across 7 review divisions) Ú No RTFs Ú Most have been supplements, not full NDAs Ú Several rolling submissions in CTD Ú Several hybrids (CTD/NDA, paper/elec)

Problems noted by FDA Ú Deletion or renumbering/renaming of CTD sections Ú Additional decimal points in numbering won’t match e-CTD structure Ú Incorrect regional sections in Quality module Ú Advise to strictly follow guidance and examples

Next step: What is e-CTD? Ú Guidelines and technical specifications for submission of CTD dossier electronically Ú Reached step 4 (adoption of final) Sept 12, 2002 Ú Designed to support full life cycle of regulatory submission Ú Facilitate electronic viewing, navigation, searching, updating

e. CTD Impact Ú Technological: – XML format for identifying individual files and creating To. C – requires new tools to create, manage, review Ú Procedural: – e. CTD specification will have significant impact on company processes from authoring to archiving – Document granularity and metadata must be defined up front

e. CTD Implementation Activities Ú Step 4 - September, 2002 Ú Step 5 - To be Implemented in all regions Ú Under development – e. CTD Viewer for review – XML tools – Training, Training

21 CFR Part 11 Considerations Ú Electronic submissions include electronic records Ú Electronic records are subject to 21 CFR Part 11 according to predicate rules Ú Examples of impact: – Versions of documents included in submissions and xml attributes assigned to each submission file must include audit trail for changes – Lifecycle management tool(s) and strategy must comply with records requirements

WRA’s CTD Initiatives CTD Task Force established within WRA Ú Identify and track submissions that will be in CTD format Ú Establish Cross Functional Task Force with representatives from across SPRI to advise and coordinate CTD implementation issues Ú Initiate Scoping Project for new technology and processes required to support e. CTD Ú Establish Working Groups to ensure implementation of CTD format submissions in a timely and efficient manner

CTD Working Groups in WRA Ú CTD Publishing Working Group: – Purpose: define publishing/template standards and processes for CTD submissions, including future electronic CTD requirements – Representatives from WRA, Source areas, Publishing groups, RIS Ú WRA Implementation Working Group: – Purpose: provide communication and training on CTD guidance and SPRI implementation strategies – Communication teams available using WRA representatives and experts

CTD Working Groups in WRA Ú Subsidiary Communication: – Purpose: provide communication to subsidiaries on SPRI's implementation of CTD guidance – Periodic communications as information becomes available, including e-CTD information Ú Global Dossier Support: – Purpose: define requirements and processes necessary to ensure SPRI's CTD format submissions will be adequate for global subsidiary submission needs – Communicate with subsidiaries to identify additional support/processes required with CTD dossiers (including regional and module 1 requirements)

CTD Working Groups in WRA Ú Frequently Asked Questions Working Group: – Purpose: provide coordinated responses to CTD related questions from members of WRA and SPRI, as well as subsidiaries – Q & As on WRA CTD web site for reference

QUESTIONS?